I
believe Albert Einstein is credited with saying, "Insanity is doing
the same thing over and over again and expecting different results."
Using that definition, it would appear that many of our so-called "conservative"
friends are insane. Every four years, they accept a phony conservative
Presidential candidate and expect somehow that they are going to achieve
a different result. They never do. Either the phony conservative loses
because he is virtually indistinguishable from his Democrat opponent
(i.e., John McCain), or after being elected while campaigning as a true
conservative, he governs as a big-government neocon, and the course
of the country changes not one iota (i.e., George W. Bush). This election
year is no exception.

The
GOP has nominated a man who has governed as a big-government liberal
in one of the most liberal (if not the most liberal) states in the union:
Governor Mitt Romney of Massachusetts. Furthermore, on virtually every
issue one can think of, Governor Romney has flip-flopped more often
than a fish that just landed in the bottom of a boat. To get a feel
for just how often Romney changes his positions, watch
this video.

If
Mitt Romney has proven anything, it is that his word means absolutely
nothing. Nothing! Romney is an opportunistic chameleon who will say
anything or do anything to get elected. Yet, this is the man whom conservatives
trumpet as the savior of America! Why? He is a Republican, and, therefore,
he must be better than the Democrat. In short, Mitt Romney is the lesser
of two evils. But is he really?

First,
the short-sighted, narrow-minded thinking of party loyalists (Republican
and Democrat) demonstrates what can only be regarded as a slave mentality.
People who vote nothing but party label are in truth already slaves.
They are slaves to an elitist establishment that uses the machinery
of the two major parties (at the national level) to advance a diabolical
globalist agenda. That's why it doesn't matter to a tinker's dam whether
it's Bill Clinton or G.W. Bush--or Barack Obama or Mitt Romney--who
is elected President: nothing changes the march towards globalism and
oppression. At the top, both major parties are controlled by globalists.

For
the sake of those who truly respect America's founders and the principles
upon which this nation was founded, I would encourage readers to familiarize
themselves with George Washington's Farewell Address. In my opinion,
Washington's Farewell Address is the greatest political speech ever
delivered in US history. It literally shaped the course and direction
of the country for decades, perhaps even a century. It really was not
until the Twentieth Century, when presidents such as Woodrow Wilson
and Franklin Roosevelt came along, that America started steering a course
in direct opposition to the principles laid forth in Washington's Farewell
Address. Since then, the vast majority of presidents, Republican and
Democrat, have almost universally ignored the sagacity of Washington's
Farewell Address, which is why nothing has changed regardless of which
party gains the White House.

In
his Farewell Address, George Washington said, "I have already intimated
to you the danger of parties in the State, with particular reference
to the founding of them on geographical discriminations. Let me now
take a more comprehensive view, and warn you in the most solemn manner
against the baneful effects of the spirit of party generally.

"This
spirit, unfortunately, is inseparable from our nature, having its root
in the strongest passions of the human mind. It exists under different
shapes in all governments, more or less stifled, controlled, or repressed;
but, in those of the popular form, it is seen in its greatest rankness,
and is truly their worst enemy.

"The
alternate domination of one faction over another, sharpened by the spirit
of revenge, natural to party dissension, which in different ages and
countries has perpetrated the most horrid enormities, is itself a frightful
despotism. But this leads at length to a more formal and permanent despotism.
The disorders and miseries which result gradually incline the minds
of men to seek security and repose in the absolute power of an individual;
and sooner or later the chief of some prevailing faction, more able
or more fortunate than his competitors, turns this disposition to the
purposes of his own elevation, on the ruins of public liberty.

"Without
looking forward to an extremity of this kind (which nevertheless ought
not to be entirely out of sight), the common and continual mischiefs
of the spirit of party are sufficient to make it the interest and duty
of a wise people to discourage and restrain it.

"It
serves always to distract the public councils and enfeeble the public
administration. It agitates the community with ill-founded jealousies
and false alarms, kindles the animosity of one part against another,
foments occasionally riot and insurrection. It opens the door to foreign
influence and corruption, which finds a facilitated access to the government
itself through the channels of party passions. Thus the policy and the
will of one country are subjected to the policy and will of another.

"There
is an opinion that parties in free countries are useful checks upon
the administration of the government and serve to keep alive the spirit
of liberty. This within certain limits is probably true; and in governments
of a monarchical cast, patriotism may look with indulgence, if not with
favor, upon the spirit of party. But in those of the popular character,
in governments purely elective, it is a spirit not to be encouraged.
From their natural tendency, it is certain there will always be enough
of that spirit for every salutary purpose. And there being constant
danger of excess, the effort ought to be by force of public opinion,
to mitigate and assuage it. A fire not to be quenched, it demands a
uniform vigilance to prevent its bursting into a flame, lest, instead
of warming, it should consume."

Notice
that George Washington said the "spirit of party" has "baneful
effects" upon the country; it is our "worst enemy"; it
is a "frightful despotism"; it prevails on the "ruins
of public liberty"; it "foments riot and insurrection";
it "opens the door to foreign influence and corruption"; people
should "discourage and restrain it"; it "agitates...
false alarms"; and, like a fire, if it is not quenched, it will
"consume."

Are
we not seeing, and have we not seen, the veracity of Washington's warnings?
People who only see and vote for a party label are more responsible
for the demise and deterioration of our liberties than any foreign enemy.
For them to accept and support any candidate, as long as they wear the
party label regardless how unethical, dishonest, duplicitous, and insensitive
to constitutional government they might be, is what has brought America
to the precipice of destruction over which she now teeters.

Second,
how can a person who has succumbed to evil have the discernment to say
which evil is greater? When people consciously surrender the spirit
of virtue and integrity by deliberately supporting a candidate they
know has a track record that is antithetical to the principles of liberty,
how are they qualified to judge what is good and what is evil? By knowingly
rejecting truth and a good conscience, they have already accepted the
spirit of evil in their hearts. Such people are in no condition to make
moral judgments regarding good and evil!

In
fact, one could make a darn good argument (and many have) that a phony
conservative Republican is a worse evil than a true liberal Democrat.
I, for one, share that position. I think only the most biased historian
would dare to say that the eight years of Bill Clinton were worse than
the eight years of George W. Bush.

One
reason why phony conservative Republicans are so dangerous to our liberties
is because most conservatives, Christians, and constitutionalists refuse
to resist and challenge a Republican President when he abandons the
principles of constitutional government. Since he is a Republican, he
gets a free pass.

At
this juncture, I invite reads to watch the following summary of Barack
Obama and Mitt Romney by Dr. Alan Keyes. Having received a Ph.D. from
Harvard University and having served as Ambassador to the United Nations
under President Ronald Reagan, Keyes is no slouch. Without a doubt,
Alan Keyes has one of the sharpest minds and most articulate tongues
in the entire country. Listen to his response to the question, "Will
you support Mitt Romney?" See
the video.

On
virtually every salient issue, the differences between Mitt Romney and
Barack Obama are miniscule. They both supported TARP; they both supported
Obama's economic stimulus package; they both supported so-called assault
weapons bans and other gun control measures; they both supported the
bailout of the auto industry; neither of them supports immediately balancing
the federal budget; they both have a track record of being big spenders;
they both fully support the Federal Reserve; they both oppose a full
audit of the Fed; they are both supporters of universal health care;
both men are showered with campaign contributions from Wall Street;
neither of them wants to eliminate the IRS or the direct income tax;
both men are on record as saying the TSA is doing a "great job";
they both supported the NDAA, including the indefinite detention of
American citizens without due process of law; they both supported the
renewal of the Patriot Act; they both support the "free trade"
agenda of the global elite; they are both soft on illegal immigration;
they both have a history of appointing liberal judges; they both believe
the President has the authority to take the nation to war without the
approval of Congress; and neither of them has any qualms about running
up more public debt to the already gargantuan debt of 16 trillion dollars.

There
are even some party slaves who are so brazen as to suggest that if we
do not vote for the phony conservative Mitt Romney it means that we
are harming true conservatives at the local and State levels. This has
to be one of the most ridiculous assertions I have ever heard! What
these people don't understand (because they are themselves slaves to
a political party) is that most honest constitutionalists vote for the
PERSON, not the party. We recognize that parties are not going to make
a difference; PEOPLE are going to make a difference!

Therefore,
if I lived in the Houston, Texas, area, I would vote for Republican
US House candidate Steve Stockman; and if I lived in the Nashville,
Tennessee, area, I would vote for Democrat US Senate candidate Mark
Clayton. And since I live in the Flathead Valley of Montana, I am supporting
Republican State Representative candidate Timothy Baldwin (yes, he is
my youngest son); and if he were running again, I would support former
Constitution Party State House member Rick Jore.

If
anything, Mitt Romney will have the most deleterious impact upon conservative
Republican candidates around the country, as they will be thrust into
the big-government shadow of their party's standard bearer. Republican
landslides came in 1980 when a perceived strong conservative (Ronald
Reagan) carried the GOP torch for President and in 1994 when the GOP
promoted (but later failed to deliver) a strong conservative congressional
agenda. It is when Republicans nominate known pseudo-conservatives,
such as John McCain (and now Mitt Romney), that they fail to achieve
sizeable victories nationwide. So, even if Romney wins, he will provide
no coattails for his fellow Republicans around the country.

Subscribe
to the NewsWithViews Daily News Alerts!

Enter
Your E-Mail Address:

And
by the way, neither will Obama provide any coattails for his fellow
Democrats should he win. By continuing and expanding Bush's wars in
the Middle East (among other things), Obama has turned off millions
of independents and constitutionally-minded Democrats. It is literally
an every-man-for-himself election year.

It's
too bad that Ron Paul is not running as an Independent. It would be
a tremendously interesting election if he were.

So,
here we are again: conservatives keep doing the same thing over and
over (supporting a pseudo-conservative for President) and keep expecting
a different result. Einstein was right: this is insanity!

•
If you appreciate this column and want to help me distribute these editorial
opinions to an ever-growing audience, donations may now be made by credit
card, check, or Money Order. Use
this link.

Chuck
Baldwin is a syndicated columnist, radio broadcaster, author, and pastor
dedicated to preserving the historic principles upon which America was
founded. He was the 2008 Presidential candidate for the Constitution Party.
He and his wife, Connie, have 3 children and 8 grandchildren. Chuck and
his family reside in the Flathead Valley of Montana. See
Chuck's complete bio here.

If anything, Mitt
Romney will have the most deleterious impact upon conservative Republican
candidates around the country, as they will be thrust into the big-government
shadow of their party's standard bearer.